Im tired of the everyone concentrating on Snowden and not the surveillance state

[davidn3600]

The government is spying on us. They are violating our constitutional rights. The government has no respect for privacy. And dont give me shit about the FISA court being a check and balance. 30,000+ requests for a warrant and they only reject 11? That's a rubber stamp court giving out secret rulings/warrants obtained through unconstitutional means.

And the authoritarians who support these tactics only response is, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." Ummm...yeah you do. And any person that says this line I put in the realm as Hitler and Stalin. You are a fascist who supports a police state.

You see, you dont get to decide if you've done anything wrong. The government makes that determination. The government is who defines what "wrong" means. That's the reason you never, ever talk to the police without an attorney. There are so many laws written so broadly that it's impossible for you to live a life and not violate a law.

Now imagine you got Big Brother constantly looking over your shoulder, constantly collecting data on what you are doing, who you are talking to and what about. Imagine how easy such a vast surveillance system can be abused to one day cross-reference what you are doing to how you vote, what you learned in school, what websites you go to, and some computer algorithm calculates all this data and determines how much of a threat you are or how likely you are to commit a crime. Already political campaigns are gathering data on behavior to identify potential voters. So a lot of this technological infrastructure already exists.

Imagine in the future, some program can track your movements and determines you tend to visit certain high crime areas of your city more than the average person....meaning you should be put under further suspicion. That is exactly what PRISM and this NSA program is doing online. You may be talking to some guy online about cooking, but unknowingly to you...he's actually a terrorist who visits radical Islamic websites. But the fact you talked to him means the system should now pay more attention to you because you might be a terrorist. Even though all you were doing is talking about how to bake a casserole.

This is the future of crime-fighting right here, folks. The government is already creating databases with your DNA even if you have never committed a crime. Remember, they have to make sure the prisons of the future are always at least 90% full in order for the corporations that own/run them to make a profit.

When our founders created this government, it was created to be a servant of the people. Can anyone honestly say this is true today? Think about it...who is it serving? If we are going to have a surveillance state that spies on people, why not a surveillance state that also spies on corporations and corrupt bank executives? Let's root out anti-trust violations by listening in on what board members say to each other and lets all be able to read CEO emails. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If private citizens can't have any privacy, then corporations shouldn't either.

[MotherPetrie]

1. K&R

[scarletwoman]

2. Well said. Welcome to DU, btw.

[Pharaoh]

19. welcome to DU

to someone who has 1477 posts?

[scarletwoman]

20. Well, the poster is new to me. And you can't see someone's post count when you have the

message window open.

I realized it was rather off the mark after I posted it, but I decided not to edit because I didn't think it was a big deal.

[Pharaoh]

23. you are forgiven

[scarletwoman]

25. Phweew!

But you forgot to say, "Go hence and sin no more."

[Enthusiast]

51. NSA is keeping a tally of your sins.

Not to worry.

[snagglepuss]

3. to read later

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Not all of us...

And welcome to DU

[marmar]

5. Many of the Snowden posts seem to be attempts to deflect attention from the surveillance state.....

....... It's hard to defend the indefensible.

[Skip Intro]

8. Absolutely. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

10. exactly.

[SlimJimmy]

15. That's true. It seems to be the modus operandi here as of late.

[pnwmom]

78. Snowden himself is providing the distraction with his leaks of documents

related to foreign intelligence and his continuing and vague promises for more.

Why didn't he stick to leaking information about internal US surveillance, which is what he claimed to be so concerned about? He's the one that turned the spotlight onto other other matters.

[marions ghost]

6. America is at a crossroads

--it is very critical to our future what becomes of this situation.

[forestpath]

7. K&R

[nessa]

9. I agree. People seem to think it's ok. They think, the Obama administration won't abuse this data.

They forget that these powers and this data is being given to the executive branch. They seem to forget that this continues, no matter who has control. Do they want this power in the hands of the next crazy president? The democrats are not always going to be in control. Once the power is given, it is going to be next to impossible to take it away.

Snowden is not the issue, the fact that this started with the Bush administration is not the issue. The issue is that it is continuing and expanding. The current democratic administration is expanding it. What do you think is going to happen with the next republican administration if this is not reigned in now?

[cstanleytech]

35. There isnt any evidence to prove that he has abused it though either though I agree the risk is

high that some president in the future very well could so let the judicial branch take over maintaining and allowing limited access to the varies intelligence agencies and or law enforcement after a warrant has been legally obtained.

[davidn3600]

49. It goes beyond that...the point that any info is being collected at all is the problem

Surveillance stifles dissent. When you are being watched, you are less likely to question Big Brother. That's a fact you see in dictatorships. People learn very quickly not to question the government and if you do, you'll attract attention. And then they will find something to put you away with.

A free country can only be free if its people are able to freely express themselves without worry that the government could potentially find their expression to be harmful.

I understand the argument that the government needs information in order to stop terrorist activity and defend the country. But the line needs to be drawn on how far its going to go. The government can't guarantee your safety. The Tsarnaev brothers were able to detonate their bombs despite this system. So are we now going to grant more and more power every time someone is able to sneak through a crack and able to blow something up? If we continue this trend, we won't have a constitution left pretty soon while the terrorists keep setting off their bombs.

[JaneyVee]

11. I think he wants us to concentrate on him.

[frylock]

60. well then you do that

[silvershadow]

12. Remember, it's about who comes after. Would you want Romney to get ahold of the apparatus? nt

[tblue]

13. Who's an "enemy of the state"?

Depends on who you ask.

This is why you don't want a massive snooping machine all ready and in place for when some megalomaniac takes the reins.

[Puzzledtraveller]

14. K&R, What is freedom if not privacy?

[cantbeserious]

16. K & R

eom

[Curmudgeoness]

17. That is the whole point.

We always have to have "an enemy" to distract us from the real threats.

[99th_Monkey]

43. A Very Important Point You Make

hence the "EEK. a Terrorist" meme, which Terry Gilliam was
already exposing as the cruel hoax it is, way back in 1985,
with his film "Brazil". Truly a prophetic masterpiece of a
movie.

[Curmudgeoness]

69. I remember that movie.

Not enough of it, but I do remember it. It is probably worth another look.

There is always a boogie-man. Probably always has been in all of human history. How can they control the masses without fear????

[nineteen50]

64. Like a pickpocket distract

and fleece.

[JoeyT]

18. Between that and running around

shrieking about Ron/Rand Paul no one is really bothering to defend the programs, other than to insist they're legal and transparent because secret courts write secret warrants that you aren't allowed to see. Then they go back to screaming about Paul/Snowden/Greenwald. No one is bringing up Obama half of the time, other than the people that seem to think opposing spying on us equals hating the President.

Maybe instead of being pissed off that our side is losing the PR war over doing indefensible stuff, they could support our side not DOING indefensible stuff.

I don't want to see CEO emails, I want every elected official's emails and phone call logs to be made public, including on their personal phones. We're all about some transparency and that's apparently not an invasion of privacy or something. I want to know every fucking lobbyist every politician ever talked to, how long they talked to them, and where they were when they talked.

[cstanleytech]

33. They are secret for a reason though they are dealing with intelligence issues that could impact

on the US so an open court while good for criminal cases when the people have been arrested isnt always the best place but congress and president Carter later decided that the FISA courts were a compromise they could live with and SCOTUS has so far allowed it to continue.
Now as for the NSA database of phone records, I will agree I dont like them maintaining it and I would much rather see the control of it given to the judicial branch that way it makes it far more difficult to try and abuse it one day plus the judicial branch i trust far more in demanding a real warrant to search the database than I do congress, the senate, the president, military or the NSA.

[matt819]

21. Thanks for this

I started something like this a few hours ago, but you said it better.

The emphasis on the messenger and on how he's labeled is diverting attention from the message, and that has to stop. Because it seems that the MSM has been co-opted or is toothless. The only opposition is coming from places like this, and we have to remain "on message."

[99Forever]

22. Well put.

I couldn't agree more.

[ecstatic]

24. And yet, you're still able to type this OP with no consequences

If what you say is true, then they're doing a bad job! Maybe you should join Snowden in China, I heard they're much better on this issue.

[hueymahl]

27. Strawman BS

OP is 100% correct. Yes, we are still better than China, but China is not the standard. Our constitution is the standard by which we should judge the actions of our government.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Alas, that's how it's done in Murica

We're a personality-driven, celebrity-driven, superficial society.

We choose and elect heavily marketed products not real people with principles and ideals.

And the corporations (and government -- ah, but I repeat myself) love it, because it prevents us from focusing on troubling systemic issues.

I love this country, but I no longer recognize it.

[99th_Monkey]

28. BUT, but ... the Liberarians are coming!!! So Snowden is E*V*I*L

Ron Paul & Son Rand support for Snowden only proves that Snowden
is "guilty, guilty, guilty" of some horrible crime.

[RufusTFirefly]

29. Martin Luther King was an ADULTERER!!!

That's why I always knew that the whole civil rights movement was wrong.

Oh yeah, and Sandra Fluke is a slut.
Why is it that we recognize the brazen cases of character assassination some times and not others?

[tsuki]

30. Hear. Hear. nt

[rightsideout]

31. Exactly

The government wants to see the focus on Snowden to deflect from the focus of them spying on us.

Run Snowden run!!

[cstanleytech]

32. Actually thats up to SCOTUS to determine if it is or is not constitutional. nt

[99th_Monkey]

37. True. And it's also up to any POTUS who runs for office as a "constitutional expert"

to at least take his best guess as to what exactly is/isn't constitutional.

Would you not agree?

[cstanleytech]

46. If it was only that simple then yes but the world isnt a simple black and white

issue which is what I think Obama learned after he became president.
It will be interesting though to see if SCOTUS does decide to step in to this case though as they rarely touch upon matters it seems when it comes to the FISA courts.

[99th_Monkey]

47. My theory about what "Obama learned once in the WH" is this

A few fellows in shades from The Agency sat
Obama down and showed him the Zapruder film,
saying "This is what happens to US presidents
who 'don't play ball'. Any questions?"

[cstanleytech]

48. Possible.

Equally possible is a few fellows in shades from the agency sat him down and showed him intel on some real legitimate intelligence reports and then let him make the call on if the program should continue or not.

[99th_Monkey]

50. Either way, we all lose

Think about it. The Dark Side is going in for the kill, to neuter the 4th Amendment
so much that any journalist who dares to have any source who dares say something
"off message" must fear for their very lives, which all has a cascading effect, where
essentially the lights go very dim in a whole sector of the news profession.

If "what is REALLY REALLY going on", that ONLY POTUS gets to find out about
once he/she is elected, is SO at variance, SO at odds, SO totally different, etc.
than what "the American public" imagines is going on, that this difference completely
alters the POTUS's positions on a whole range of issues, from closing Gitmo, to
over-use of drones to the point of creating more terrorists than they are killing,
etc. <-- IF this is pretty much true, then a very good case can -- and I think
should -- be made that this HUGE disparity needs to be somehow bridged quickly &
democratically so as to return to some semblance of government of, by and for
The People, not the Super-Rich.

Without any free press whatsoever, we're completely sunk.

[Doctor_J]

71. The scotus that gave us citizens United?

[cstanleytech]

74. Disagreement over SCOTUS rulings are hardly new though Doc.

But I will point out that they are still considered to be the most trustworthy of our branches of government.

[Doctor_J]

81. You consider this SCOTUS trustworthy??

Wow. Like I said elsewhere, the BOGers have completely jumped the shark

[cstanleytech]

85. So you consider congress more trustworthy???

[1983law]

34. I'm actually sick of Glenn Greenwald.

Damned "journalists" making themselves the freakin story.

[davidpdx]

36. Snowden should be part of the discussion

Let me tell you why. He was hired by a company that was a subcontractor for the government. Questions have come up about security clearances and whether people who get them are thoroughly vetted. Would you really like someone to have access to the information who shouldn't? It is possible many people's background checks have been faked. The question of whether Snowden should have had access needs to be answered just as much as the other question.

[99th_Monkey]

40. "We the people" want transparency and to bring an end to rampant corruption.

That is PRECISELY what they already voted overwhelmingly FOR, in the
person of Barak Obama; but we were bamboozled, and badly.

But it's still unclear how this is going to play out over long haul. One
thing for sure, the next few months will assuredly be "interesting times".

[Octafish]

38. CEOs are today's Lords and Barons...

Top pols are royalty.

For proof, count how many among them are public servants.

Money. Power. Revolving Door. Wall Street. Pentagon. Congress. White House.

More proof, count how many oppose wars for profit.

Like days of old, where the serfs and peasants are subjects to serve the king and his court.

[99th_Monkey]

41. I just finished watching the Tudors mini-series, on Netflix.

And was struck by the same thoughts as you post here.

God/dess help us.

[DissidentVoice]

39. I am bitterly disappointed by this whole issue

First of all, I voted for Obama, twice.

I have been very disillusioned by him.

He has not closed Guantanamo Bay.

The worst thing was that he reauthorised the horrid USA Patriot Act after speaking out against it as a candidate.

Now this.

My dad used to say "you'll send an honest person to Washington, but they won't be honest after they get there."

The machinery wasn't put in place by Obama, of course; it was by Bush/Cheney...but Obama won't be in office after 2016. What would this machinery be in the hands of a Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

[99th_Monkey]

42. Exactly!

It's like Obama's constructing a very dangerous and deadly apparatus,
AKA a 100%-saturation Surveillance State, where freedom of speech,
press, assembly and to pursue happiness is suspended, indefinitely.

Just as "indefinitely" as the amount of time I can be "legally" locked
up, detained and tortured (if Manning is any example), without any
phone calls to attorneys, without being ever charged with a crime, and
without ever seeing the light of day in an actual US Courtroom.

[bhikkhu]

44. 30,000 requests since 1979. Its less disturbing if you say it that way.

And I don't think that we have any breakdown on what year those were submitted...maybe most of them were in the ramping up stages of the war on terror, 2001-2003 or so? The president says that the numbers during his presidency are surprisingly small. And if none have been denied since 2009, maybe that's because they only request a warrant when there is a good reason to. Maybe.

[randome]

52. Apparently the FISA court rejects some requests for specific reasons...

...then the requests are modified to meet the requirements stipulated by the court and resubmitted.

That's what I've seen someone else post. I don't have a link but it sounds right.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Fire Walk With Me]

45. If they can't counter the message, they'll attack the messenger. n/t

[sibelian]

53. The weird thing is how they just keep going...

Over and over again, everyone points out that they're trying to confuse a cat that's no longer interested in the shiny laser pointer dot and they just try different lasers.

[FiveGoodMen]

54. Hear, hear!

[WillyT]

55. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[tavalon]

56. Everyone isn't

The Lamestream media is and that's a problem. But we have destroyed their carefully set up bullshit before. We can do it again.

Your last paragraph is the best.

[blkmusclmachine]

57. We can hear you now.

[Cleita]

58. I agree. Snowden is a small blip compared to the gaping and festering wound

in our government that he ripped the scab off of.

[chimpymustgo]

59. Great post, David!! K&R for clarity on the SURVEILLANCE STATE.

-edit-

If we are going to have a surveillance state that spies on people, why not a surveillance state that also spies on corporations and corrupt bank executives? Let's root out anti-trust violations by listening in on what board members say to each other and lets all be able to read CEO emails. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If private citizens can't have any privacy, then corporations shouldn't either.

-edit-

[WatermelonRat]

61. Hearing this hyperbole makes me want to join the NSA out of pure spite.

If you are opposed to this thing on principle, that's fine. If you think it pushes the limits on proper government authorit, that's fine too. If you're worried about potential for abuse and think more checks and balances should be in place, I have no issue with it. What I do take issue is the hysterical ranting that this program constitutes a "surveillance state" (or better yet "fascism&quot . This does not amount to a police state. Not by a long shot. That kind of garbage is more fitting for Tea Partiers and NRA loons.

[randome]

62. Well said.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Grassy Knoll]

63. Welcome....

and

[FiveGoodMen]

80. Always wait until you have a full-blown, unopposable surveillance state before pointing it out

Like waiting for a tumor to kill someone so you can say, "Yep, he had cancer, all right!"

[randome]

82. How about getting evidence before starting the operation?

All we have to go on is Snowden's outrageous claims.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[Populist_Prole]

65. K&R I agree 100 percent

[DeSwiss]

66. But, but, but......

...Obama has already convicted them -- Manning and Snowden. He says they broke the law and are guilty (of exposing his government's crimes).

- Who needs facts, or to be judged by one's peers when the President of the United States of America has already condemned you?

K&R

[SleeplessinSoCal]

67. I agree. It's similar to the IRS & Issa.

Bate and Switch I do believe. Make the IRS follow the letter of the law. We will all be better off re: both the Espionage Act and 501(c)4 wording. And possibly find some new allies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. but Snowden hates Jesus and universal healthcare and Glenn Greenwald is a poopy head

that's the issue

[Doctor_J]

70. It's the culture of personality

the movers & shakers gave us Obama to continue the oligarchs' agenda and bring a few million formerly rational Americans on board. I fell for the hope and change bit, but they're not going to get me to cheer another giant leap toward fascism.

[yurbud]

72. like Manning, Assange, or Sibel Edmonds, I'm more interested in what he revealed than his

personal life.

[Bonobo]

73. Those that do so are mindless magpies attracted to shiny objects.

It is a true sign of brain death -or at least terminal dumbing down.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. he broke the RULES and the RULES are whats important.

That's why we pay cops to drag grannies out of their wheelchairs and off to prison because they were smoking a joint in a medical marijuana co-op.



Because they BROKE the RULES!

[pnwmom]

76. Then blame it on Snowden for not focusing his revelations on internal US surveillance

and instead moving on to leaking documents related to foreign intelligence, in deliberate attempts to interfere with diplomatic efforts by Obama, first in China and then in Russia.

[Bonobo]

77. You know what?

I'm just going to keep kicking this every time I read another shiny-object seeking magpie talk about Snowden.

I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT SNOWDEN!!!

[TheMadMonk]

79. Who's noticed the number of Snowden attackers with a 2008...

...sign up date. A post count in the sub 1000 range, and roughly 100 posts in the last 90 days.

'Twould be interesting to do a meta-data analysis of DU and see how many fit this sort of profile, several years of membership, low post counts, but flurries of messenger attacking, distract from the message, type activity following government embarrassments.

[ucrdem]

83. That train left the station in 2003 and there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. nt

[themaguffin]

84. How naive are we? Did many of us miss the reports saying that all of this was happening years ago?

Because it seems that way with posts like this.

The activity isn't new.

But his actions are.